Trying to demonstrate her grasp of constitutional law after recently blanking on examples of Supreme Court rulings she opposes, Delaware Republican U.S. Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell on Tuesday found herself chided by a debate panelist – in front of a roomful of legal scholars – for not memorizing the U.S. Constitution.

O’Donnell and her Democratic opponent Chris Coons were facing off in their third debate in six days when panelist Chad Livengood of The Wilmington News Journal asked whether she would repeal the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Those amendments call for enumerating citizenship rights, authorizing Congress to collect income taxes and direct election of U.S. senators, respectively.

O'Donnell expressed her support for the 17th Amendment, but she tripped on the 14th and 16th Amendments.

"I'm sorry, I didn't bring my Constitution with me," O'Donnell chuckled. "Fortunately, senators don't have to memorize the Constitution. Can you remind me of what the other ones are?"

The candidates also sparred over Coons' assertion that teaching creationism or intelligent design in public schools would violate the 1st Amendment.

"Wow, you've proven how little you know not just about constitutional law, but about the theory of evolution," O'Donnell told Coons. O'Donnell was then met with an audible gasp from the audience, followed by laughter, when she asked Coons, "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"

So the darling of the tea party has no idea that the Constitution prohibits establishment of religion, or that the 14th Amendment guarantees due process and equal protection.

A Republican campaign urging Latinos not to vote has been yanked from the airwaves amid an outcry from Democrats that it was a dirty trick against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his hotly contested race against Republican Sharron Angle.

Reid sought to link the ad to Angle Tuesday as it drew a harsh rebuke from President Barack Obama, Hispanic leaders and candidates from both parties in Nevada. Angle's opponents also pounced on the tea party favorite for her comments to Hispanic high school students that "some of you look a little more Asian to me."

"Listen to her latest, running ads on Hispanic television telling people not to vote," Reid said. "She is trying to keep people from voting."

Reid has fiercely courted the Hispanic vote in the contest against Angle, who supports strict immigration policies. With the race in a dead heat, a dip in turnout among Hispanics would likely land Angle in the U.S. Senate.

The Republican group Latinos for Reform had planned to eventually run the commercials in Nevada, Florida, California, Texas and Colorado through the Nov. 2 election.

"Don't vote this November. This is the only way to send them a clear message," the ad's narrator announces in Spanish. "You can no longer take us for granted."

Obama slammed the campaign during a round-table with reporters from Spanish-language outlets.

"I think it is terrible," he said. "It is a cynical political ploy to try to drive Latino votes to benefit a Republican candidate in Nevada who would never vote for immigration reform."

What is the 28th Amendment of the Constitution, and what is it's effect on the Supreme Court?

The 25th Amendment determines what happens if there is a vacancy in the President or Vice President position, or if they're disabled.
There is no 28th Amendment.
The 12th Amendment I concede I had to look up.

However, I'm not running for an office that requires an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Anyone who has to take such an oath should be held to a higher standard regarding an understanding of the Constitution. After all, how can you uphold something you don't understand?
In fact, as a private citizen there is nothing I can do that is unconstitutional. Only members and agents of the government can violate it.

Knowing the amendments by number does not bother me so much, although the 14th and 16th should readily come to mind given the controversies that have been raised regarding them (citizenship of children of illegal aliens for the 14th, and income tax complaints for the 16th).
A fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment by any politician is deeply troubling, though.

The phrase itself is not found in The Constitution.
In some RL debates with Fundamentalist Christians(Evangelicals), this point has been brought up frequently as a point of argument.
It is usually used when the topic of discussion is the US a Christian nation or not, or in discussing founding the US as a Christian nation...blah blah blah
Somewhere in their churches or whatever they have been taught to use this point of argument, that the phrase The Separation of Church and State,,,can not be found in the Constitution.

My first impression(when reading the sentence, I have not seen the video) was that she was trying to try this point of debate, rather than ignorance of what the First Amendment is. It is still a laughable point.

My first impression(when reading the sentence, I have not seen the video) was that she was trying to try this point of debate, rather than ignorance of what the First Amendment is. It is still a laughable point.

Please. She was not trying to be clever. She really didn't know.

Yes, the literal text "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. But the First Amendment prohibits an establishment of religion and both Jefferson and Madison famously wrote about the concept of separation of church and state, which the Supreme Court picked up over a century ago.

If she really knew her stuff and was just trying to be a clever constitutional originalist, she would not have also said something stupid like, what is the 14th Amendment?

She just didn't know. A Sarah Palin moment.

And it isn't coincidental that she didn't know about fundamental rights. I'm sure she could go on and on about what she thinks the Second Amendment means. But when it comes to fundamental rights, the tea party extremists believe we shouldn't have any, except when it comes to their own rights.

KING, N.C. – The Christian flag is everywhere in the small city of King: flying in front of barbecue joints and hair salons, stuck to the bumpers of trucks, hanging in windows and emblazoned on T-shirts.

The relatively obscure emblem has become omnipresent because of one place it can't appear: flying above a war memorial in a public park.

The city council decided last month to remove the flag from above the monument in Central Park after a resident complained, and after city leaders got letters from the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State urging them to remove it.

That decision incensed veterans groups, churches and others in King, a city of about 6,000 people 15 miles north of Winston-Salem. Ray Martini, 63, an Air Force veteran who served in Vietnam, launched a round-the-clock vigil to guard a replica Christian flag hanging on a wooden pole in front of the war memorial.

Since Sept. 22, the vigil has been bolstered by home-cooked food delivered by supporters, sleeping bags and blankets donated by a West Virginia man and offers of support from New York to Louisiana.

"This monument stands as hallowed ground," said Martini, a tall, trim man with a tattoo on his right arm commemorating the day in 1988 when he became a born-again Christian. "It kills me when I think people want to essentially desecrate it."

The protesters are concerned not only about the flag, which was one of 11 flying above the memorial when it was dedicated six years ago, but about a metal sculpture nearby depicting a soldier kneeling before a cross.

"I won't let it fall," Martini said. "I have already told the city, before you can take it down, I'll tie myself to it and you can cut me down first."

The protesters, though, aren't satisfied with the vigil. They're planning an Oct. 23 rally in support of their ultimate goal, which is for the city to restore the Christian flag to the permanent metal pole on the memorial.

"We've let our religious freedoms and constitutional rights be stripped away one by one, and I think it's time we took a stand," King resident James Joyce said.

That is what extremist Christians (garden variety tea party supporters) think about religious freedoms.

They want unlimited freedom for themselves, but no freedom for anyone else.

Yes, the literal text "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. But the First Amendment prohibits an establishment of religion and both

By Congress, correct.

Which at the time, left open the door for states and local governments to do it. That was the reference to Jefferson's correspondence with the concerned Bishop from the wiki link.

The Bishop was concerned and wanted no involvement from lower governments, and Jefferson clarified that that was the intent(though not covered at that time).

Modern day Christians eschew the Bishop's concern, and are trying to use that as an 'in', if you will, for instilling ID and Creationism in curricula, as well as being able to hand out bibles on public school campuses, etc. And this is the background that O'Donnell comes from, so it makes sense that she was trying to hedge here, albeit laughably. If you have seen any of the Discovery Center's propaganda, or Ben Stein's propaganda, et al, this line of thought is present and runs throughout.

Jefferson and Madison famously wrote about the concept of separation of church and state, which the Supreme Court picked up over a century ago.

Correct as well, but there are many writing of both, and other founders(including the Brit Paine), which we assume are in the Constitution, but are not.

And there was just recently the ID ruling, I'll chase that down and post a link if you are not familiar.

The point is that this 'separation of church and state' thing is still going on for these people. It is not in the Constitution, and needs to be fought up to the Supreme Court for decisions. And they are, so far, willing to do this crap state by state, or school district by school district.

She was smart enough to evade the blatant Roe V Wade question put to her during the debate(very crudely, but it did work), I am sure that has it in the front of her mind about this 'separation of church and state' Christian infiltration thing too. I think she just let it slip the wrong way. I have not seen the video still, but I bet she had a smirky smarmy look on her face when she said it. I could be wrong, I was emphatically wrong about Glenn Beck, he was trying to be some kind of preacher; seems so even more so now.

I still think she's an idiot. If you want to think that she is such an idiot that she does not know what the First Amendment is, go for it.
I just think that if you underestimate these people, they will just get more Pandas and People books into schools, or whatever new plan they have hatching.
I am pretty sure that these people want Christ and Creationism taught in schools, they tried it in the 80s and 90s, they will try it again now.